I'm running a game and was looking over my PCs and their max hp was bothering me. When I bring up the manage hp I notice that the PC with a Con 8 was showing a bonus of -4. I know that this is not huge but it is a little worrying. Is this right or have I set something wrong?
Let's not call people stupid for their character choices. Not all of them are informed by the same priorities as you, and that doesn't make the person stupid for making those choices. 8 Con is certainly risky, but there are plenty of reasons why a person might make that choice.
Because without a really good reason, Giving yourself con 8 is stupid.
If that's the case, then having con scores at all is stupid. If there is a objectively right choice, then it shouldn't be a choice. That's just poor game design.
The Players of my game like to do things that are not "common" I would not have done it but he is a Tabaxi Bard. I don't really ask why they make certain choices. I just learn from theirs.
If you like to role play, making choices like that can be rewarding. One of my favorite characters of all time was dumb as a stump. Had a 6 INT and a 6 WIS. He was a half-orc barbarian, so he couldn't even really armor up. Made instinctual decisions, got thrown in jail a lot, pissed off the captain of the town guard to the point the captain went after him personally, paid any amount of gold for whatever as he couldn't count and didn't care, but was a great character to play.
I actually think bard is probably my favorite class to con dump. You can play a backline support unit with a lot of elusive and tricky spells. And dumping con maximizes the skill monkey aspect of the class, as even Athletics will be positive. Races like Tabaxi or Goblin help with positioning. Seems like a fun character.
I've played a 9-con rogue, and I'm gearing up for a second shot at my 10-con warlock. My artificer only has 14 Con because she started with a juiced-up 77-point array instead of the 72-point Standard Inadequacy, elsewise she'd've had 12 Con at best and possibly a point or two lower.
There are quite a few players out there willing to do the 'stupid' thing and not put their second-biggest number in Constitution on every single gorram character. Hell, give me the right character set-up and story beats? I'll absolutely play that 6 Con spellcaster, or even the 6-Con rogue/bard/artificer. A viciously low Constitution score, in 5e, is one of the ways one could simulate a character dealing with a severe lingering injury, a'la All Might, that heavily restricts their endurance and overal fortitude.
Frankly, Constitution in general is a poor design choice. There's no reason for Strength and Constitution to be two different stats. None. You can cite all the reasons you like, all the nitypicky nonsense fifty years of D&D Tradition(TM) have built up, but all Constitution does is act as a point drain and a stat tax, especially for melee characters. Strength-based builds often need to invest in 3+ stats simply to be competent as strength-based melee - you need Strength, you need Con, and many of them will need at least some degree of Dex as well. Casters, meanwhile, can ignore Strength, often ignore Dex, and are able to brush aside Con to focus exclusively on their Power Stat. they have the freedom to build their stats out the way they envision their character being built, while a Strength-based build has no such freedom.
Constitution should be abandoned entirely and merged into Strength. There's a reason so many RPG systems do exactly that, or at the most they derive 'Strength' from a 'Body' stat. The Six Sacred Scores are lowkey one of the biggest hurdles to making D&D a slick, fluid, fun to play modern game. It gets by well enough, of course...but the more one digs into other systems, and the more one digs into design principles and ethos for TTRPGs, the more the Six Sacred Scores fall short. Constitution being one of the biggest offenders, for exactly this reason. It's entirely unnecessary and does absolutely nothing positive for the game, its impact on D&D is strictly negative.
Athletics is a STR skill, there are no CON-based skills.
Yeah, we all know. I'm pretty sure what Aethelwolf was saying is that if you dump Con as a Bard, then you can have a 0 Str modifier and with Jack of All Trades even your Athletics modifier will be positive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorry if asked before,
I'm running a game and was looking over my PCs and their max hp was bothering me. When I bring up the manage hp I notice that the PC with a Con 8 was showing a bonus of -4. I know that this is not huge but it is a little worrying. Is this right or have I set something wrong?
A CON of 8 should be a -1
An 8 con should be a -1, as I'm sure you realize.
Can you link to the sheet, please? it will be easier to tell if we can see everything.
Is it a level 4 character? Then the -4 would make sense, as that's -1x4.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Yes I is a lol 4 PC. I did not realize it adds up like that. That was my mistake thank you
May I ask why on earth your character has con 8.
My homebrew content: Monsters, subclasses, Magic items, Feats, spells, races, backgrounds
Why is that even a question?
Because without a really good reason, Giving yourself con 8 is stupid.
My homebrew content: Monsters, subclasses, Magic items, Feats, spells, races, backgrounds
Depends on how you roll and how you role play. Not everyone min/maxes.
Saying con 8 is bad ain't min/maxing, it's not wanting to die in the first 2 sessions.
My homebrew content: Monsters, subclasses, Magic items, Feats, spells, races, backgrounds
If you're a wizard it is a lot less relevant than if you're a fighter.
Let's not call people stupid for their character choices. Not all of them are informed by the same priorities as you, and that doesn't make the person stupid for making those choices. 8 Con is certainly risky, but there are plenty of reasons why a person might make that choice.
Thank you! Calling someone stupid for not playing how YOU play is rude, at best.
If that's the case, then having con scores at all is stupid. If there is a objectively right choice, then it shouldn't be a choice. That's just poor game design.
Alternatively, you could be wrong.
The Players of my game like to do things that are not "common" I would not have done it but he is a Tabaxi Bard. I don't really ask why they make certain choices. I just learn from theirs.
If you like to role play, making choices like that can be rewarding. One of my favorite characters of all time was dumb as a stump. Had a 6 INT and a 6 WIS. He was a half-orc barbarian, so he couldn't even really armor up. Made instinctual decisions, got thrown in jail a lot, pissed off the captain of the town guard to the point the captain went after him personally, paid any amount of gold for whatever as he couldn't count and didn't care, but was a great character to play.
I actually think bard is probably my favorite class to con dump. You can play a backline support unit with a lot of elusive and tricky spells. And dumping con maximizes the skill monkey aspect of the class, as even Athletics will be positive. Races like Tabaxi or Goblin help with positioning. Seems like a fun character.
Athletics is a STR skill, there are no CON-based skills.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
I've played a 9-con rogue, and I'm gearing up for a second shot at my 10-con warlock. My artificer only has 14 Con because she started with a juiced-up 77-point array instead of the 72-point Standard Inadequacy, elsewise she'd've had 12 Con at best and possibly a point or two lower.
There are quite a few players out there willing to do the 'stupid' thing and not put their second-biggest number in Constitution on every single gorram character. Hell, give me the right character set-up and story beats? I'll absolutely play that 6 Con spellcaster, or even the 6-Con rogue/bard/artificer. A viciously low Constitution score, in 5e, is one of the ways one could simulate a character dealing with a severe lingering injury, a'la All Might, that heavily restricts their endurance and overal fortitude.
Frankly, Constitution in general is a poor design choice. There's no reason for Strength and Constitution to be two different stats. None. You can cite all the reasons you like, all the nitypicky nonsense fifty years of D&D Tradition(TM) have built up, but all Constitution does is act as a point drain and a stat tax, especially for melee characters. Strength-based builds often need to invest in 3+ stats simply to be competent as strength-based melee - you need Strength, you need Con, and many of them will need at least some degree of Dex as well. Casters, meanwhile, can ignore Strength, often ignore Dex, and are able to brush aside Con to focus exclusively on their Power Stat. they have the freedom to build their stats out the way they envision their character being built, while a Strength-based build has no such freedom.
Constitution should be abandoned entirely and merged into Strength. There's a reason so many RPG systems do exactly that, or at the most they derive 'Strength' from a 'Body' stat. The Six Sacred Scores are lowkey one of the biggest hurdles to making D&D a slick, fluid, fun to play modern game. It gets by well enough, of course...but the more one digs into other systems, and the more one digs into design principles and ethos for TTRPGs, the more the Six Sacred Scores fall short. Constitution being one of the biggest offenders, for exactly this reason. It's entirely unnecessary and does absolutely nothing positive for the game, its impact on D&D is strictly negative.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah, we all know. I'm pretty sure what Aethelwolf was saying is that if you dump Con as a Bard, then you can have a 0 Str modifier and with Jack of All Trades even your Athletics modifier will be positive.